WHV Extention For Farm Workers Questioned

As far as I am aware no outcome resulted from The Fair Work Enquiry that produced a paper on A National Disgrace, The Exploitation of Temporally Work Visa Holders.

Just a few weeks after present Morrison government announced it was going to 'apply pressure' to some on the dole to undertake rural work, it has apparently proved all too hard, besides not being welcome by farm lobby, which has resulted in extended time 'down on the farm' for WHV's , with enticements of considerable longer stays in Australia.

It seems the expansion of the Pacific Island scheme was not considered, which would have proved a far better solution for all involved as well as helping to shore up some of those delightful, but jobless island economies, but no it appears the attractiveness of back packers, easier to exploit is the preferred option.
The report I read suggested 1-3 WHV workers were of the opinion they were exploited. Or worse. Attempted sexual exploitation being another factor.

All very well this government caving into the farming lobby but please ensure duty of care and rights are upheld. No slave 'cheap labour'. Another factor will be that the extended stay will likely directly compete with those permanently onshore surely? While at it how about reforming the ridiculous private employment system that operates?

Any discussion with regards the enforcement of correct wages being paid by farmers for work done? Or more of the same, keeping quiet and doing the time, all to gain another year?
Shame for those in the farming industry, that do the right thing, but many rogues out there bullying, using and otherwise abusive behaviour towards workers.
If such a thing is to be sped through to become law, which they surely will, then only fair protection from exploitation is included, with clear instructions of where to go if issues arise.

Any discussion with regards the enforcement of correct wages being paid by farmers for work done? Or more of the same, keeping quiet and doing the time, all to gain another year?
Shame for those in the farming industry, that do the right thing, but many rogues out there bullying, using and otherwise abusive behaviour towards workers.
If such a thing is to be sped through to become law, which they surely will, then only fair protection from exploitation is included, with clear instructions of where to go if issues arise.

Not saying it's right but exploitation of migrant workers is something that happens the world over. If people want to come over on a WHV and want to extend their year to two years, they know they have to do certain work. It's not work that will give them a PR visa, it's work that allows people to come and go, explore the country and earn some pocket money at the same time.

The original concept of WHV has been diminished, with the original intent being to earn money to enable travel . It has increasingly been seen as 'something' else. Not only 'cheap' labour for farmers, but as a way to PR for entrants in many cases as well.
Now on one hand, I have heard farmers moan about the 'low quality' of workers, too often availing themselves for farm work purely for a visa extension, all fine and good, but on the other hand, the farming lobby wants ever more of the same. Reports shoe 1 in 3 have not been paid correctly, and no it is not okay to steal wages from too often vulnerable people. For stealing is what it is as Australia has minimum wage laws and industry agreements. Increasingly back packers are seen as a source of employee in a number of fields that go far beyond the original .holiday work ideals of simpler times.

The original concept of WHV has been diminished, with the original intent being to earn money to enable travel . It has increasingly been seen as 'something' else. Not only 'cheap' labour for farmers, but as a way to PR for entrants in many cases as well.
Now on one hand, I have heard farmers moan about the 'low quality' of workers, too often availing themselves for farm work purely for a visa extension, all fine and good, but on the other hand, the farming lobby wants ever more of the same. Reports shoe 1 in 3 have not been paid correctly, and no it is not okay to steal wages from too often vulnerable people. For stealing is what it is as Australia has minimum wage laws and industry agreements. Increasingly back packers are seen as a source of employee in a number of fields that go far beyond the original .holiday work ideals of simpler times.

Whether it's still possible I know not but I don't see why it would't be

It's not. Rules have changed over the last few years and it's not a simple matter of WHV - 457 (now defunct) - PR - AU citizenship. Now it's WHV - back to where you came from unless you are extraordinary in some way.

How? What's that mean? An employer has a tried and tested employee what's to know? Saves employment agency fees, time and the unknown. I have encountered this on numerous occasions. All part of the close to rorts that was happening within the system, I suppose it could be called. .Things may have tightened up in more recent times, but that's how it was.

It is common in the regions to pay WHV holders below-market wages, sometimes exceptionally below-market wages, in exchange for things like a free room in the granny flat out back. Great deal for the employer, not so much for the WHV-holder.

It is common in the regions to pay WHV holders below-market wages, sometimes exceptionally below-market wages, in exchange for things like a free room in the granny flat out back. Great deal for the employer, not so much for the WHV-holder.

This practise also significantly disadvantages Australians.

This being what the conversation is about. The question being posed that of what actually has resulted from findings regarding wage theft of back packers. Just why are farming lobbies all for the employment of more back packers, even after critique of standards have been questioned?

There are in parts, perfectly good reasons locals do not express interest in such jobs, by and large. Not forgetting the more valid employment of in the area by labour from our Pacific neighbours which actually goes towards boosting their home island economies . I guess these folk would probably not take getting 'ripped off' very kindly though. Then there is the sexual exploitation of young females in remote locations, clearly documented.

As far as I am aware some are entering under WHV with the hope to secure a long term future in the country. I know one that has changed her visa to a student with that in mind. She works at a local Pizzeria I sometimes frequent .

How? What's that mean? An employer has a tried and tested employee what's to know? Saves employment agency fees, time and the unknown. I have encountered this on numerous occasions. All part of the close to rorts that was happening within the system, I suppose it could be called. .Things may have tightened up in more recent times, but that's how it was.

It's a simple question. You made a statement, I queried it. That tried and tested employee (of six months or less) and the employer still have to fulfil certain criteria. You may have encountered it on numerous occasions in the past but you're suggesting in previous posts that that's what the WHV is for or leading towards now. It isn't.

It's a simple question. You made a statement, I queried it. That tried and tested employee (of six months or less) and the employer still have to fulfil certain criteria. You may have encountered it on numerous occasions in the past but you're suggesting in previous posts that that's what the WHV is for or leading towards now. It isn't.

How do you know it isn't? (may be an appropriate reply) The extension of a further year and not forgetting the lifting of age to mid thirties for Irish and Canadian nationals, will no doubt allow for ever more people with qualifications of varies sorts that will ease the PR route. I'm sure the barrage of migration agents will happily oblige arriving at potential outcomes, if approached and paid accordingly with regards the new situation. My experience of such matters, is there is often a way, to remain, for those with most levels of qualifications. It may be knowing how to execute the matter at hand.

I base what I write on direct knowledge and will usually state IMO if not certain. Other than political discussions, obviously, which reflect my world view. (but not always possible to prove on the spot nor to dictate outcomes)
Actually, my Irish neighbour entered the country as a back packer several years ago and went onto get PR. He managed to land a few rather impressive employment opportunities during the course of his WHV , well removed from the 'earn a bit of cash to enable travel' which was once the general idea, having engineering qualifications from home, he networked, which resulted in a company he worked for actually sponsoring him to stay, to where he remains, going on jobs around Australia, not to mention a brother, younger still on WHV intending to follow his footsteps, or the young Irish lass, presently renting a room by him,, working in the city looking to get PR. She did say that she may need to return home and apply from there with her employer pretty much ensuring her a job if returns.

It may well be getting 'harder' , although I prefer, 'less easier' as a Colombian woman I know, around 34, here on a study visa, had to return home a few months ago, when something about her overseas vet qualifications together with onshore study here would not get her over the mark. Apparently before she would have managed to stay, at least that was her assumption.
Hence there does appear a change has occurred in this way of remaining. I will remain interested into how my neighbours brother goes with his quest to remain.

Now in the past I have 'known of', if not always in person, Danish and German and Swiss nationals getting PR, during WA boom days. many worked in high pay mine connected jobs in the main, but to my knowledge few remain in Australia to this day. One thing for certain though, certainly not all those folk did six months durations.....just saying.

I trust you are more informed as to how it was, you may have noted, that I claimed, in an earlier post that I was not 'au fait' with new arrangements. Felt necessary to state as much from the tone (somewhat dismissive, but hardly unusually so) of your above post.

I love you to arguing with each other sometimes, although it does get a bit boring,
Amazulu right wing a complete bore wouldn’t want to be sat around a dinner table with him , if it doesn’t fit with his view of the world it’s fake news
I would happily sit around a table with the troubadour, because he is open to arguments
ho hum